If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

LOL, maybe Obama NEEDS to be reigned in. Remember when FDR tried to expand the Supreme Court and pack it with his guys because he felt like he couldnt get anything done? A spoiled brat with the football is about as scary as it gets, and after that Healthcare POS bill he didnt include the GOP in, the continuing spending resolutions in place of real budgets, the additional troops in the middle east, the continued erosion of civil liberties......you cant say theyre obstructionist totally....he knows where in the road he needs to meet them to deal. He chooses not to so he can place BLAME, which is all his base cares about.....not like both sides are culpable is it?

So what does he do when the legislative branch refuses to do it's job? Just sit by and let the country stagnate until Republicans get the sand out of their vaginas and decide to do their job? I don't agree with his action, but I applaud his boldness. Something had to be done and he is making a choice the difficult choice to do it. Maybe the threat will be enough to get these *******s to actually cooperate. And if not, maybe when they see he isn't joking, they'll start working. Or worst case scenario, this breaks the checks and balances of our government, at which point each and every House Republican is just as culpable as Obama in this, and should be subject to identical treatment...

Yeah, pretty much. The POTUS is not part of the Legislative branch. It's simply not his job. Our founding fathers specifically created the seperation of powers to prevent a tyrant from seizing control of the country.

2015 Goals:
1) Win the next game.
2) See goal #1

"The problem with internet quotes lies in verifying their authenticity."
-Abraham Lincoln

Yeah, pretty much. The POTUS is not part of the Legislative branch. It's simply not his job. Our founding fathers specifically created the seperation of powers to prevent a tyrant from seizing control of the country.

Well, I'll have to disagree with you there. I'm thinking the founding fathers didn't envision the government acting like a bunch of petulant spoiled brats. Well, maybe they did. Maybe that's why the ability for the POTUS to put forth executive orders was given to the executive branch? Either way, Obama isn't doing anything illegal. He is doing something his position has the ability to do.

Regardless, all indications are he is planning on implementing mandatory background checks. He is not looking to sieze guns, so I really don't know why everyone is panicking. If people are upset about background checks, then we are a country full of selfish *******s...

If I could take your pain and frame it, and hang it on my wall,
maybe you would never have to hurt again...

The gulf between "planning to" and what is actually done with this administration is bigger than average, imo. Sometimes I don't know whether they're just winking at the left and then running to the middle or actually being pushed there as part of negotiations. There's been talk Obama's going to stop pre-compromising in his second term but it's too early to see whether that was talk, too. The fiscal cliff deal was a step in the right direction in terms of tactics, but I still think they gave too much. And I don't know why Obama seems willing to mix it up over the debt ceiling when it seems like to me he has the legal power to just declare it null and void.

I'm not fluent on the limits placed on executive orders, so I don't know how much he's allowed to do with guns. Some people in this thread are talking as if they know, so maybe they chould share. But what's coming out now is that the goal is to target more than just background checks. Private gun sales and gun shows are also in the mix. This story from the NYT has the details:

What would you have had him done? Cut everything down to the minimum...?

Yes., if the legislative and political choice is made for on revenue and spending to add 4 trillion to the debt by 2022 making this around 26 trillion plus interest And unless the sequestration cuts are made, add back in another 1.2 trillion.

The fiscal cliff deal approved by Congress will increase deficits over the next decade by close to $4 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office

As a result, the CBO estimates that the bill will reduce revenues over 10 years by $3.64 trillion and increase spending by $332 billion.

Just the fiscal cliff bills spending increases by themselves eat up most of the half trillion in defense cuts from 2011. Or a better analysis, half rich tax non-extensions as part of the fiscal deal which is why I wasn't in favor any revenue increases until significant non-discretionary and mandatory spending cuts had been completed.

The gulf between "planning to" and what is actually done with this administration is bigger than average, imo. Sometimes I don't know whether they're just winking at the left and then running to the middle or actually being pushed there as part of negotiations. There's been talk Obama's going to stop pre-compromising in his second term but it's too early to see whether that was talk, too. The fiscal cliff deal was a step in the right direction in terms of tactics, but I still think they gave too much. And I don't know why Obama seems willing to mix it up over the debt ceiling when it seems like to me he has the legal power to just declare it null and void.

I'm not fluent on the limits placed on executive orders, so I don't know how much he's allowed to do with guns. Some people in this thread are talking as if they know, so maybe they chould share. But what's coming out now is that the goal is to target more than just background checks. Private gun sales and gun shows are also in the mix. This story from the NYT has the details:

Interesting. I'm OK with these because they are both ways to circumvent the background checks. I'll see if I can find it again, but I had read an article that talked about how Al Queda and other terror groups would send people to the U.S. to buy the weapons they needed from gun shows here since there was nothing in place to verify who is purchasing. I don't know how true that information was, but it's something that would raise an interesting paradox within the right. The thought that their very own gun laws are arming the terrorists killing U.S. soldiers should be causing a significant level of dissonance.

Actually, here is a blog that references the article...

The Associated Press reported in April that 247 people on the federal government’s terror watch list were able to legally purchase weapons in the U.S. last year after going through background checks.

The gulf between "planning to" and what is actually done with this administration is bigger than average, imo. Sometimes I don't know whether they're just winking at the left and then running to the middle or actually being pushed there as part of negotiations. There's been talk Obama's going to stop pre-compromising in his second term but it's too early to see whether that was talk, too. The fiscal cliff deal was a step in the right direction in terms of tactics, but I still think they gave too much. And I don't know why Obama seems willing to mix it up over the debt ceiling when it seems like to me he has the legal power to just declare it null and void.

I'm not fluent on the limits placed on executive orders, so I don't know how much he's allowed to do with guns. Some people in this thread are talking as if they know, so maybe they chould share. But what's coming out now is that the goal is to target more than just background checks. Private gun sales and gun shows are also in the mix. This story from the NYT has the details:

Heres a nice little piece that should help understanding. On a side note, if the rumored "assault rifle" ban is included in the EO, i can not wait for the hearings for overstepping his limits and the attempt to circumvent an established right by executive fiat.

Yes., if the legislative and political choice is made for on revenue and spending to add 4 trillion to the debt by 2022 making this around 26 trillion plus interest And unless the sequestration cuts are made, add back in another 1.2 trillion.

Just the fiscal cliff bills spending increases by themselves eat up most of the half trillion in defense cuts from 2011. Or a better analysis, half rich tax non-extensions as part of the fiscal deal which is why I wasn't in favor any revenue increases until significant non-discretionary and mandatory spending cuts had been completed.

The problem is where are those cuts going to come from? Everyone talks about these things idealistically, but they never consider how pragmatic it is. Cut social security and medicaid? OK, but then what are we going to do about the thousands of people who lose their housing because medicare/medicaid no longer pays for their nursing homes and other housing? What about the thousands of unemployed that would flood the unemployment office when these government agencies are shut down? It's stuff like this that needs to be considered, but never is...

Heres a nice little piece that should help understanding. On a side note, if the rumored "assault rifle" ban is included in the EO, i can not wait for the hearings for overstepping his limits and the attempt to circumvent an established right by executive fiat.

Good link. Thank you.

Did you read it, though? I've just read it over carefully and I don't think that those stating such an Executive Order on this matter would be obviously beyond the powers of the President. Congress could challenge, but with the Senate in control of the Democrats that would be difficult.

Did you read it, though? I've just read it over carefully and I don't think that those stating such an Executive Order on this matter would be obviously beyond the powers of the President. Congress could challenge, but with the Senate in control of the Democrats that would be difficult.

I did read it, unlike some posters in this forum, i read my links =) I don't think it's all that unclear that any executive order would fail scrutiny under the second amendments "shall not be infringed" edict. If the POTUS can skirt the explicit direction of the Constitution by EO, then we are going to have REAL trouble on our hands. It would have been like FDR using an EO to expand the Supreme Court to get his guys on it.